Page images
PDF
EPUB

1st Session.

No. 276.

HOMESTEAD ENTRIES WITHIN THE FORMER FORT PECK INDIAN RESERVATION, MONT.

AUGUST 29, 1919.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed.

Mr. SMITH of Idaho, from the Committee on the Public Lands, submitted the following

REPORT.

[To accompany S. 183.]

The Committee on Public Lands, to whom was referred the bill (S. 183), providing additional time for the payment of purchase money under homestead entries of lands within the former Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Mont., have carefully considered the same and recommend its enactment.

The following report of the Committee on Public Lands of the Senate explains the necessity of the proposed legislation:

The Committee on Public Lands, to whom was referred the bill (S. 183) providing additional time for the payment of purchase money under homestead entries of lands within the former Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Mont., having had the same under consideration, report thereon with amendments and as amended recommend that the bill do pass.

The bill was referred to the Interior Department, and the Secretary of that department furnished the committee with the following report thereon:

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
Washington, June 23, 1919.

Hon. REED SMOOT,

Chairman Committee on Public Lands,

United States Senate.

MY DEAR SENATOR: I am in receipt of the request of your committee for a report on S. 183 entitled "A bill providing additional time for the payment of purchase money under homestead entries of lands within the former Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Mont."

The said bill is substantially a copy of S. 4178, on which the department submitted favorable report under date of April 27, 1918. A copy of the said report is inclosed. The bill was passed by the Senate on November 18, 1918.

Attention is called to the fact that the word "of" has been omitted after the word "date" in line 19, page 2, of Senate bill 183.

I have been informed that there were numerous crop failures on the reservation last year, as well as during the previous year, referred to in the said former report. The enactment of Senate bill 183 will not only take care of this situation but will render similar legislation in the future unnecessary, so far as these lands are concerned. I therefore recommend its enactment.

Cordially, yours,

HR-66-1-vol 2—12

ALEXANDER T. VOGELSANG,
Acting Secretary.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
Washington, April 27, 1918.

Hon. H. L. MYERS,

United States Senate.

MY DEAR SENATOR: Under date of March 27, 1918, your committee requested a report on S. 4178, entitled "A bill providing additional time for the payment of purchase money under homestead entries of lands within the former Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Mont.

[ocr errors]

On account of adverse climatic conditions resulting in poor crops, it appears that many homesteaders on said reservations are unable to make the payments of purchase money required under their entries. Under existing law they may only be granted an extension of time for the payment of one-half of the annual installments of purchase money which become due. The bill proposes to authorize an extension of time for the payment of the other one-half of such installments.

In view of the apparent necessity for the passage of this proposed legislation, as indicated above, and as the bill requires the payment of interest by the homesteaders in order to secure the extension, thus compensating the Indians, I recommend that the bill be enacted into law.

Cordially, yours,

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

TO EXTEND THE BENEFITS OF EXISTING PENSION LAWS TO SOLDIERS, SAILORS, AND MARINES OF THE PRESENT WAR.

AUGUST 29, 1919.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed.

Mr. FULLER of Illinois, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, submitted the following

REPORT.

[To accompany H. R. 2022.]

The Committee on Invalid Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 2022) vesting in the Bureau of Pensions jurisdiction of all pension claims based upon service in the Army, Navy, or Marine Corps of the United States, subsequent to October 5, 1917, to repeal certain sections of article 3 of the war risk insurance act, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report thereon as follows:

The purpose of this bill, as indicated by its title, is to extend to all persons in the military or naval service during the present war, whose service began on or after October 6, 1917, the benefits of all existing pension laws, of which they were deprived by section 312 of the act of October 6, 1917, known as the war risk insurance act. Under the provisions of that act existing pension laws have no application to persons then in or thereafter entering the military or naval service, or to their widows, children, or dependents, except in so far as rights under such pension laws had theretofore accrued.

In lieu of pension under the general laws, article 3 of the war risk insurance act provides "compensation," which is merely a pension under another name, wherein the rates provided and the methods of arriving at the proper rate differ widely from the system established almost from the foundation of the Government and in effect up to the date of that act. It is believed that the provisions of said article 3 as to "compensation" are practically incapable of being administered equitably, and, while these provisions involve great expense and difficulty in their administration, they at the same time give a much less liberal allowance to those who rendered service in the Army and Navy of the United States during the recent war than is provided for others for similar services under the provisions of the general pension laws.

As will further appear, the truth of this statement can be readily established by a few comparisons and contrasts which will be presented, and which, it is believed, warrant the repeal of the law providing for compensation and substituting therefor the provisions of the general pension laws. The war-risk insurance act relates to three distinct subjects, very slightly related to each other, namely, allotments, compensation, and insurance. Article 1 of that act has to do with provisions of a general character and definitions; article 2 provides for allotments and family allowances; article 3 for compensation for death or disability; and article 4 for insurance.

It is not the purpose of this bill to make any change whatever in the matter of allotments or of insurance, but it is addressed wholly to the subjects covered by article 3, under the head of "compensation for death or disability." There have been introduced in the present Congress a number of bills looking to the transfer to the Bureau of Pensions of part or all of the duties of the Bureau of War Risk Insurance. The bill now under consideration differs from the others in that most or all of the other bills contemplate the continuance of the allowance of compensation as provided by that act, to be administered, however, by the Bureau of Pensions, under the Department of the Interior, instead of the Bureau of War Risk Insurance, under the Treasury Department. It is not unfair to say that the war-risk insurance act of October 6, 1917, was enacted in haste and with inadequate deliberation under the stress of war. The combination of three entirely distinct functions, resulting in the creation of a bureau of enormous proportions, was unfortunate, and the results have, within the personal knowledge of almost every Member of Congress, been wholly unsatisfactory. Logically, the administration of its provisions as to allotments should have been vested in the War Department and the Navy Department, as had previously been done. The provisions as to compensation, or pension, under whatever name, should have been intrusted to the Bureau of Pensions, leaving the provisions as to insurance to be administered by the Treasury Department.

It is now too late to attempt to alter the situation in regard to allotments. With the disbandment of our great Army, the duties of the War Risk Bureau, with reference to allotments, will rapidly decrease to a vanishing point. The matters relating to insurance are of a more permanent character and will properly and, perhaps, adequately be administered by the Treasury Department. The matter of compensation, or pensions, growing out of this war is in its initial stages and is certain to develop to enormous proportions which will require legislative and administrative attention for years

to come.

The mistake which your committee believes was made in this matter of substituting the system of compensation for the existing pension system can not be too promptly corrected. It is impossible to secure from the Bureau of War Risk Insurance any adequate information as to what has already been accomplished in the administration of article 3 as to compensation, and it is, of course, wholly impossible to forecast the probable expense, even for one year in the future, of the payments to be made under that article, or under the provisions of the general pension laws if article 3 should be repealed. Your committee are warranted, in the main, however, in stating,

without hesitation, that the expense of administering the law as to compensation as it now exists must necessarily be incomparably greater than the expense of adjustment of claims which would arise under the general pension laws; and, furthermore, that the benefits to accrue to claimants under the compensation act would be far less than under the pension laws.

Since the foundation of the Republic there have been laws granting pensions, which have been added to from time to time, constituting one recognized system. All of the archives relating to such claims are on file in the Bureau of Pensions, including the War of the Revolution, the War of 1912, the War with Mexico, the Civil War, the War with Spain, and the various Indian wars, and not only the wars but the Regular Establishment as well. Thus, the pension history of the Government in all its various forms is found in the one place, as also the individual military or naval history of each claimant for pension. It is obvious that the continuity of this syetm is in the interest of economy and efficiency of administration, and also the uniform and equitable distribution of the bounty of the Government to its defenders and their dependents.

The act of October 6, 1917, for the first time in the history of the Government, breaks in upon the continuity of the pension system. It calls the bounty of the Government compensation instead of pension, but the purpose and meaning is exactly the same.

It has often been said, and the truth of the statement is admitted by at least some of the officials of the Bureau of War Risk Insurance that the provisions of article 3 of the act of October 6, 1917, are incapable of being properly and fairly administered. The warrant for such an assertion may be found in a cursory examination of the provisions of that law. A feature which at once challenges attention is the fact that so much is left to the discretion, or judgment, or whim of the administrative officer. In section 301 it is provided that expenses of burial and return of the body to his home may be paid, not to exceed $100 "as may be fixed by regulation"; and, again, 'as between the widow and the children not in her custody and between children the amount of compensation shall be apportioned as may be prescribed by regulation." In section 302, with reference to payment of a nurse or attendant "such additional sum shall be paid, but not exceeding $20 per month as the director may deem reasonable"; and, again, "the bureau shall, from time to time, readjust this schedule of ratings in accordance with actual experience"; and, again, "the amount of each monthly payment shall be determined according to the family conditions then existing." In section 303, with reference to medical examinations, "for all examinations he shall, in the discretion of the director, be paid his reasonable traveling and other expenses," etc. In section 306 appears the language, "or within such reasonable time thereafter, not exceeding one year, as may be allowed by regulation." In section 309 "time herein provided may be extended by the director, not to exceed one. year for good cause shown."

It is respectfully submitted that it is not in the interest of good administration that, in matters so vitally affecting the well-being of so large a class of deserving applicants, so much should be left uncertain, indeterminate, and subject to the varying judgment of those appointed for the time being to administer the law.

« PreviousContinue »